Inherent code performance advantages of D over C?

[deadalnix]

On Friday, 13 December 2013 at 19:07:47 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 20:46:26 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2013 12:33 PM, Max Samukha wrote:
>>> Don't you find it somewhat alarming that both alternative 
>>> compilers follow
>>> neither the standard inline asm nor ABI?
>>
>> I find it unfortunate. But it also can be difficult and time 
>> consuming to reimplement an assembler for those back ends, so 
>> I can understand why it isn't a priority.
>
> LDC in fact implements DMD-style inline assembly (occasionally 
> there are bugs, though, as it's a complete reimplementation).
>
> I don't think it would be unreasonable to work towards a common 
> D ABI on the various Posix x86_64 systems, but given that DMD 
> comes with its own bespoke exception handling implementation 
> which doesn't really make sense to implement in GDC/LDC (as 
> libunwind is the platform standard on Linux/… anyway), there is 
> not really much motivation to start work on aligning the other 
> parts of the ABI either.
>
> David

I'm reinventing it right now for SDC, so it indeed make sense.